Working with Theory

Upon my last meeting with my supervisor, I was advised to try to get a few more ideas down. In particular - ideas regarding theory.

For my project, it looks like Anthony Giddens' theory of structuration is going to fit the bill. This is funny - I did my very first presentation in my very first course (COMS 601) on this guy.

And to be honest, I've been delighted to have not thought of him or his ideas since then! But here I am, faced with a stack of books by old Giddens himself.

My supervisor said, "Listen, you've got to read the theory. Think about and identify the main concepts. How does this theorist think? Reflect on how the main concepts might be usable in your area of interest." So, here goes.

Giddens is a real middle of the road type guy - which I like. He sees weaknesses in previous social theories. All those guys and gals (who am I kidding though - it was mainly guys, wasn't it?) who believed that the social world was dominated and determied by social structures? Nah. Those theorists put too much emphasis on social structures. And all those guys (and gals?) who believed that individual social actors (i.e. you an me) were responsible for the social world? Not really. They put too much emphasis on agency.

It is a bit of both people, argues Giddens.

According to Anthony, social structures exist but so do not-so-stupid social actors. Social agents, he says, call the shots: "In and through their activities agents reproduce the conditions that make...activities possible" (Giddens, 1984, pp. 2)

Some of his other thoughts that tweaked my interest:

Social Actors are Competent

Giddens says:

"...actors will usually be able to explain most of what they do if asked. Questions often posed about intentions and reasons by philosophers are normally only put by lay actors either when some piece of conduct is specifically puzzling or when there is a 'lapse' or fracture in competency" (Giddens, 1984, pp. 6)

And also on motivation:

"Motivation refers to potential for action rather than to the mode in which action is chronically carried out by the agent. Motives tend to have direct purchase on action only in relatively unusual circumstances, situations which in some way break the routine. For the most part motives supply overall plans or programs...within which a range of conduct is enacted. Much of our day-to-day conduct is not directly motivated" (Giddens, 1984, pp. 6)

Example. Today I took the bottles back to the bottle depot. After a bit of waiting it was my turn. Up I went and dumped out my orange garbage bag into the bin. The guy started to count the bottles. All normal. Then the lady behind me says, "Here, I'll help." She started to take off the bottle caps of some of my bottles in the bin in front of me.

Here were my thoughts, which occurred in a span of about 10 seconds.

"What? Do I have to take off the caps? There is no information about that. Why don't they put up information? They should put up information. I could have taken off the caps. There is no educational or instructional information for patrons here! Or why don't they encourage the workers here to talk to the patrons and tell them? No one ever talks here. This is a poorly run program. They should revamp it so that they encourage the workers to interact. Are patrons scared to talk to the workers here because there are posters all over talking about how the workers are disabled? Oh, that is probably it...this lady must work with disabled people. Yah, she knows. She must know about this stuff. She knows more than me. I could have taken off the caps if I knew. But why doesn't she just let this poor guy do his job here? Does they guy want me to help? Does the guy not want me to help? Whatever. Take off the caps if you want."

So, back to Giddens. This is one of those circumstances where that lady's motivations came to the forefront. And did it throw me for a loop.

Rather than rely on the mutual knowledge of the social situation, she had a different motivation. She could have clearly articulated it, I'm sure. But we don't usually do that. Usually, our actions aren't terribly driven by motivation - like Giddens says. But when they are driven by motivation, there is a blip in the social situation, just like what happened to me at the bottle depot.

So, I am not researching the bottle depot (but there is probably a research project or two there!) I want to look at new Canadian immigrants and how well they fare in the transition into Canadian post-secondary schooling. I'm using academic advising as my site of examination, as it plays a part in the transition process.

Could Giddens' ideas above play out in a new Canadian immigrant student/advisor interaction? Sure.

Imagine the student and advisor in an advising session, first semester, first year. Are there instances when there are blips in that mutual knowledge, when motivations are exposed? If so, what could that tell us about the reproduction of the social activity of advising? And what does that mean in terms of the possibility of social transformation of this activity?

Reference:

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.